Can derby instances be clustered ?

[Legolas Woodland <le...@gmail.com>]

Hi
Thank you for reading my post.
can derby instances be clustered together ?
can some one lead me to some resources or steps to cluster two instance 
of  derby which i run on my own computer ?


Thanks

Re: Can derby instances be clustered ?

[Legolas Woodland <le...@gmail.com>]

Michael Segel wrote:
> Derby is a very good, lightweight, general purpose, pure java relational
> database. 
>
> Having said that, I think it's important to choose the right tool for the
> right job.
>
> Derby has its historical roots as a lightweight database. It lacks certain
> features that are found in Informix or DB2 that would make clustering or
> high availability viable. (Data Warehouseing too for that matter.)
>
> To look at using Derby in situations where you would want to implement a
> cluster, or some form of high availability, high performance scenario, would
> not be a good idea. Its "possible" but not practical.
>
> But your question brings us to a point  of asking a critical question... 
> "What is the future direction of Derby?" 
> And this is a loaded question. Do you keep Derby lightweight so that it can
> be embedded in to web apps or small lightweight tasks; Or do you add
> features that will increase the size and complexity of Derby, but allow it
> to compete with proprietary databases like Sybase, Oracle, Informix, DB2,
> etc ...
>
> This is a design issue that needs to be addressed by Sun, IBM, Apache and,
> of course the user community at large.
>
> I think that for Derby to survive in the long run, it needs to determine its
> niche and then strive to be the best in that niche.
>
>
> But hey! What do I know?
> I'm just some developer who has his own opinions and vision of the future.
> ;-)
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jean T. Anderson [mailto:jta@bristowhill.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 6:33 PM
>> To: Derby Discussion
>> Subject: Re: Can derby instances be clustered ?
>>
>> Legolas Woodland wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi
>>> Thank you for reading my post.
>>> can derby instances be clustered together ?
>>> can some one lead me to some resources or steps to cluster two instance
>>> of  derby which i run on my own computer ?
>>>       
>> Sequoia supports clustering; see http://sequoia.continuent.org/HomePage .
>>
>> Also, Emmanuel Cecchet did a presentation at ApacheCon US 2005 and it is
>> available at
>> http://www.continuent.org/uploads/sequoia/Resources/2005-12-
>> 14SequoiaApacheCon05US.pdf
>>
>> regards,
>>
>>  -jean
>>     
>
>
>
>
>   
Thank you for reply.
Main reason for my questions is :
I want to learn clustering and its concepts in a web application and a 
simple database at the first step.I know derby and i though that i could 
use Derby to learn some database clustering stuff.

Re: Future of Derby (was Re: Can derby instances be clustered ?)

[Dan Scott <de...@gmail.com>]

On 4/27/06, derby@segel.com <de...@segel.com> wrote:
<snip>

> If anyone *were* to propose introducing such high-end features, the
> community would, I would hope, look long and hard at how its built to
> try to ensure that the impact on the "core" is minimal.
>
> David
>
[mjs]
Ok.
It would realistically mean a hard core review and probably a major rewrite
of a lot of the engine. Call it Derby 2.0. The nice thing though is that
with a little bit of effort, you could probably reuse a lot of the existing
components of derby. (And actually a good excuse to go module by
module and fix a lot of the "issues" documented in jira.)

</snip>

Given that the current major version of Derby is 10.x, I would humbly
propose the next major version be Derby 20.x; no sense in going back
to Derby 2.0 :)

Dan

RE: Future of Derby (was Re: Can derby instances be clustered ?)

[de...@segel.com]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David.Vancouvering@Sun.COM [mailto:David.Vancouvering@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:04 PM
> To: Derby Discussion
> Subject: Future of Derby (was Re: Can derby instances be clustered ?)
> 
> I think this is a great question, Michael.  Derby clearly differentiates
> today in its nature as lightweight, embeddable, easy to use and secure,
> while still being fully functional.
> 
[mjs] Yes. And lets consider this the starting point.
Today Derby is a light weight general purpose RDBMS.

> But I think we're going to see more and more "big" users wanting "big"
> features from it.  Do we Just Say No?  Is there a way to architect Derby
> to handle larger deployments while still staying true to its roots?
> 
[mjs] Yes. And that's the crux of the problem.
Looking at Cloudscape's heritage users, Derby is an embedded DB. You
increase the size of the footprint, you increase the "costs" of
implementation, making it less desirable. 

> At a high level one could argue that features like replication and
> clustering, with the right level of effort and intention, can be made
> "pluggable", and can be "unplugged" using the module architecture so
> these features are not available and the classes are not even in the
> footprint when you want to use Derby as a lightweight database.
> 
[mjs] 
Exactly. A pluggable architecture is a potential. You would then have to
create a developer's workbench or tool that would allow you to create
customized "deployment" versions of the engine. (Why package a class if its
not being used?)

So the feasibility of such a design has potential. However, who is going to
design and implement it?

> If anyone *were* to propose introducing such high-end features, the
> community would, I would hope, look long and hard at how its built to
> try to ensure that the impact on the "core" is minimal.
> 
> David
> 
[mjs] 
Ok. 
It would realistically mean a hard core review and probably a major rewrite
of a lot of the engine. Call it Derby 2.0. The nice thing though is that
with a little bit of effort, you could probably reuse a lot of the existing
components of derby. (And actually a good excuse to go module by module and
fix a lot of the "issues" documented in jira.)

Is Sun or IBM willing to step up to the plate?
(That's a rhetorical question, BTW) Not that I'm picking on Sun or IBM, but
they do have a vested interest in controlling the future of Derby. And they
have the "deep" pockets to pay for this sort of work. 

The offshoot of this is that such a framework design could be built in to
DB2 or IDS as well. (And there are some advantages to this...) 

In order to be successful, there would have to be a core group of
"volunteers" willing to step up to the plate and run a re-architect project.
Now who has time to dedicate enough of their gray matter? (Hence the call to
Schwartz and Mills to step up to the plate....)

> P.S. Michael: why do you always say "hey, what do I know?"  We should
> call you Michael Wadduino Segel :)
> 
[mjs] 
Uhm no. Just call me Gumby. ;-)
Its really an old inside joke that goes back to '97 - '00 time frame.
After Phil screwed the pooch, Informix was lead by a couple of brain dead
CEOs. (Finocchio and Dexmier) But that's another story... ;-)

Future of Derby (was Re: Can derby instances be clustered ?)

["David W. Van Couvering" <Da...@Sun.COM>]

I think this is a great question, Michael.  Derby clearly differentiates 
today in its nature as lightweight, embeddable, easy to use and secure, 
while still being fully functional.

But I think we're going to see more and more "big" users wanting "big" 
features from it.  Do we Just Say No?  Is there a way to architect Derby 
to handle larger deployments while still staying true to its roots?

At a high level one could argue that features like replication and 
clustering, with the right level of effort and intention, can be made 
"pluggable", and can be "unplugged" using the module architecture so 
these features are not available and the classes are not even in the 
footprint when you want to use Derby as a lightweight database.

If anyone *were* to propose introducing such high-end features, the 
community would, I would hope, look long and hard at how its built to 
try to ensure that the impact on the "core" is minimal.

David

P.S. Michael: why do you always say "hey, what do I know?"  We should 
call you Michael Wadduino Segel :)

Michael Segel wrote:
> Derby is a very good, lightweight, general purpose, pure java relational
> database. 
> 
> Having said that, I think it's important to choose the right tool for the
> right job.
> 
> Derby has its historical roots as a lightweight database. It lacks certain
> features that are found in Informix or DB2 that would make clustering or
> high availability viable. (Data Warehouseing too for that matter.)
> 
> To look at using Derby in situations where you would want to implement a
> cluster, or some form of high availability, high performance scenario, would
> not be a good idea. Its "possible" but not practical.
> 
> But your question brings us to a point  of asking a critical question... 
> "What is the future direction of Derby?" 
> And this is a loaded question. Do you keep Derby lightweight so that it can
> be embedded in to web apps or small lightweight tasks; Or do you add
> features that will increase the size and complexity of Derby, but allow it
> to compete with proprietary databases like Sybase, Oracle, Informix, DB2,
> etc ...
> 
> This is a design issue that needs to be addressed by Sun, IBM, Apache and,
> of course the user community at large.
> 
> I think that for Derby to survive in the long run, it needs to determine its
> niche and then strive to be the best in that niche.
> 
> 
> But hey! What do I know?
> I'm just some developer who has his own opinions and vision of the future.
> ;-)
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jean T. Anderson [mailto:jta@bristowhill.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 6:33 PM
>> To: Derby Discussion
>> Subject: Re: Can derby instances be clustered ?
>>
>> Legolas Woodland wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> Thank you for reading my post.
>>> can derby instances be clustered together ?
>>> can some one lead me to some resources or steps to cluster two instance
>>> of  derby which i run on my own computer ?
>> Sequoia supports clustering; see http://sequoia.continuent.org/HomePage .
>>
>> Also, Emmanuel Cecchet did a presentation at ApacheCon US 2005 and it is
>> available at
>> http://www.continuent.org/uploads/sequoia/Resources/2005-12-
>> 14SequoiaApacheCon05US.pdf
>>
>> regards,
>>
>>  -jean
> 
> 
> 

RE: Can derby instances be clustered ?

[Michael Segel <ms...@segel.com>]

Derby is a very good, lightweight, general purpose, pure java relational
database. 

Having said that, I think it's important to choose the right tool for the
right job.

Derby has its historical roots as a lightweight database. It lacks certain
features that are found in Informix or DB2 that would make clustering or
high availability viable. (Data Warehouseing too for that matter.)

To look at using Derby in situations where you would want to implement a
cluster, or some form of high availability, high performance scenario, would
not be a good idea. Its "possible" but not practical.

But your question brings us to a point  of asking a critical question... 
"What is the future direction of Derby?" 
And this is a loaded question. Do you keep Derby lightweight so that it can
be embedded in to web apps or small lightweight tasks; Or do you add
features that will increase the size and complexity of Derby, but allow it
to compete with proprietary databases like Sybase, Oracle, Informix, DB2,
etc ...

This is a design issue that needs to be addressed by Sun, IBM, Apache and,
of course the user community at large.

I think that for Derby to survive in the long run, it needs to determine its
niche and then strive to be the best in that niche.


But hey! What do I know?
I'm just some developer who has his own opinions and vision of the future.
;-)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean T. Anderson [mailto:jta@bristowhill.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 6:33 PM
> To: Derby Discussion
> Subject: Re: Can derby instances be clustered ?
> 
> Legolas Woodland wrote:
> > Hi
> > Thank you for reading my post.
> > can derby instances be clustered together ?
> > can some one lead me to some resources or steps to cluster two instance
> > of  derby which i run on my own computer ?
> 
> Sequoia supports clustering; see http://sequoia.continuent.org/HomePage .
> 
> Also, Emmanuel Cecchet did a presentation at ApacheCon US 2005 and it is
> available at
> http://www.continuent.org/uploads/sequoia/Resources/2005-12-
> 14SequoiaApacheCon05US.pdf
> 
> regards,
> 
>  -jean

Re: Can derby instances be clustered ?

["Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>]

Legolas Woodland wrote:
> Hi
> Thank you for reading my post.
> can derby instances be clustered together ?
> can some one lead me to some resources or steps to cluster two instance
> of  derby which i run on my own computer ?

Sequoia supports clustering; see http://sequoia.continuent.org/HomePage .

Also, Emmanuel Cecchet did a presentation at ApacheCon US 2005 and it is
available at
http://www.continuent.org/uploads/sequoia/Resources/2005-12-14SequoiaApacheCon05US.pdf

regards,

 -jean